Article on news.bbc

[tinman0]

Forgive me for being something akin to Tory Boy, but this article annoys me:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4716891.stm

Its about Brian Haw outside the Houses of Parliament and it kinda sanitizies whats going on to remove him, namely no protest within earshot of a politician. apparently politicians (esp New Labour ones) have had enough of people moaning and complaining within earshot. It appears we are all ungrateful and a bit too cynical for New Labour's liking and they've had enough.

The article gives the politicians view on Brian Haw and how annoying he is. Which must be a bit of a joke since all our politicians have gone on a long holiday and won't have to suffer him for 10 weeks or so.

They also liken his tactics to the Yanks with the speakers on Noriega, which is extreme to say the least. I mean, Brian Haw isn't blasting out Meat Loaf all day long which could be possibly where he is going wrong - but I digress.

What annoys me about this article is that it talks from the point of view of the politician - and how distracting Brian Haw is, and this comment is quite profetic:

[quote=daft quote from bbc nonce]
It is also the case that the prime minister has been forced to drive past Mr Haw and his one man mass demonstration every time he wants to enter the Commons, at question time for example.

And you can imagine how irritating that must be.
[/quote]

What a stupid comment the writer is making. Our poor old leader has to endure approx 5 seconds of a demonstration of the 1 occasion he turns up at Parliament a week. Do I really feel for Toby Blur? Not really.

And as for it being irritating - you mean like driving past numerous speed cameras in this country - now that IS irritating.

But what gets up my nose more than anything is this.

If a Tory Govt had put through this legislation the students would be marching, there would a be a general strike, we'd have every liberal boring us to death on with every tv minute they can get - it would be a big thing.

But its New Labour - so it must be okay.

And if you happened to be a BBC Reporter - what would your first job be - look at the case impartially?

Or suck the balls of the politcal elite?

[ahonen]

I think you may have grasped the wrong end of the stick entirely on this one. The way I read it is that the writer is taking a pop at the MPs in a pretty sarcastic way - especially in the paragraph you've quoted about Bliar driving past the guy.

Give it another read, but try it with a sarcastic tone of voice - all will become clear.

Edit for spolling.

>> Edited by ahonen on Tuesday 26th July 12:08

[tinman0]

I tried re-reading it from the point of sarcasm but its failing me. This line near the top sets the tone of the article:

daft bbc nonce said:

Any number of MPs, staff, even journalists, would echo Voltaire's cry: "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it". At least they do until that freedom of speech starts to get on their nerves.

The second line isn't sarcasm - its stating a fact. This guy has got on their nerves and they are putting through the legislation to get rid of him.

I've tried to read the article as if he was mocking what was going on - but I can't quite see the mocking, nor the sarcasm. If sarcasm was intended then its a terrible piece of writing.

Our knife wielding rough collies could do better

[JonRB]

I must concur with ahonen - it does appear to have been written in an ironic style. Perhaps 'sarcastic' is too strong a word though.

I certainly wouldn't say it was pro-Labour though.

[Tuna]

Agreed with the above reply - it's v. sarcastic and achieves what it aimed to do - getting you riled up about this government's casual attitude to critics.

If you read the bbc site as left-wing propaganda, then you'll be missing out some interesting political commentary. Whilst the BBC may have liberal roots, and is severely hamstrung by the need to be seen as impartial the reports on the economy, bills and other Labour nasties are revealing. If they were genuinely pro-labour, a lot of this stuff would simply not be mentioned.

[JagLover]

Tuna said:

If they were genuinely pro-labour, a lot of this stuff would simply not be mentioned.

I have never maintained that they are simply pro-Labour. The BBC has it's own agenda, which on many issues is further to the left than labour

[Ahonen]

JonRB said:

I must concur with ahonen - it does appear to have been written in an ironic style. Perhaps 'sarcastic' is too strong a word though. I certainly wouldn't say it was pro-Labour though.

Yes, ironic is a better word for it.